got tar and feathers? and some rope?

"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin

Date: 5/26/2006 5:58:10 PM
Author: FireGoddess
*smacksmacksmacksmacksmacksmacksmack*


I hate to be crass, but maybe he would have gotten what he DESERVED being 'too small' to go to prison - it's not like the kid/s he molested had a choice. I give up. I just don't get it anymore.

Legally cohabitated

Time elapsed: 24 months of separation hell
Cost of process: 3k
Finally being together: Priceless

Legally cohabitated

Time elapsed: 24 months of separation hell
Cost of process: 3k
Finally being together: Priceless

Mr Majestic:

Well, glad to be of service.... Kinda.... 

Life can be full of surprises.  At least I lived life.  Of course, if I had a differents set of morals those stories would have been different and probably would never have been told.  Such is life.


My real concern with this thread is the number of people jumping to conclusions on what the "crime" actually was.

Is this a "real" child molester who is a threat to other children.

Is this someone who got caught in somthing very minor or stupid where they were not the aggressor - and an overzelous police and DA prosecuted them mainly in order to claim that they are prosecuting all "child molesters" (look how tough we are !).

Is it something in between (and there are many shades of grey in between those two extreems).

Sunkist said:

Let the punishment fit the crime...

Did you ever consider the possibility that perhaps it does (or that the punishment may actually exceed the crime).


The fact is that none of us know the details and situation.  Many of you just see the words indication some for of sex "crime" with a person under the age of 18 - and jump to the worst possible conclusion about it.

I am not so quick to jump to conclusions given my background experiences - and the fact that I cared about trying to obey the law (otherwise I would have nicely had two sexual relationships with underaged gals); and the recent changes in the "sexual predator" laws that seem to demonize people over even innocent or minor things that are clearly mislabled in the statues to make them sound horrific (not to mention if you are targeted for sexual issues from younger people).

What I would do if this person lived in my area is try to find out more about the details of what happened.  Only then could I make a judgment.

Perry

A Girl's Best Friend

Legally cohabitated

Time elapsed: 24 months of separation hell
Cost of process: 3k
Finally being together: Priceless

A Girl's Best Friend

Glitterata & Deb:

A 13 year old is just not old enough to make that decision.

     But many of them are making the decission to have sex, and even at younger ages than
     that.  What is an appropriate age?

     Once a young lady, or a young man, decide that they are going to have sex - does it
     really matter with whom?  If so - to what extent.  For clarification - I am talking
     premeditated sex.  Not spur of the moment because it feels good or they lost control.

     Actually, I personally think it has a lot more to do with maturiy.  I have seen 12 year olds 
     that are more mature in many ways than other 18 year olds.

     What about that 14 year old genious that was half way throgh college.  No one would
     think she was immature.  She clearly was no stranger to sex.

     Something I have councelled freinds on - who asked for advice of how to handle the 
     sex issue with their kids (smoking and drugs are another common item) has been along
     the following:  First; you have to admit to yourself that you cannot stop you kids from 
     having sex if they decide to do so.  Second; you must acknowledge that part of your 
     responsibilities as a parent - is to tech them how to take responsibility for their lives as 
     they grow older.  So here is what I suggest; that you have a talk with you (son
     or daughter) and explain those two items.  Then ask them to do a reseach project
     and come back with a report on the various issues regarding sexual activity.  The benifits
     having sex and why people have sex. The menstral cycle and how and when a lady can
     get pregnant - including variations that can occur in the cycle.  STD's and lessor infections
     (yeast, simple rashes, etc).  The affect on their life from such items (ranges from minor
     inconvience to very signifiant). The affect on their lives if they cause or get pregnant
     from the idea that they take full responsibility for the situation, and whatever else they
     parents wishes to add that is directly related.  Then when their son and daughter comes
     back with the report and satisfies the parents that they understand the issues (and
     the few parents that have reporte back indicate that their kid taught them things that
     they did not know).....  Then you tell your son or daughter that it is now their
     responsibility to chose when and who they get involved in.  You may express your
     desires on how and when you would hope they would chose; but you must accept
     that they may chose to do different.  Also ask to be kept up to date on any major
     issues.  That you will be open to talk about things.  

     I know this is not an easy way to go - but it seems to be effective and leads to better
     relationships and communication between kids and their parents.        


We do need to do something to protect children from adults who take advantage of their immaturity.

      Agreed.  Not all cases are clear - but most cases where someone older took advantage
      are not that difficult to figure out.  Arrest and appropriate prosecution are in order.

I also don't think you can know for sure how her life would have turned out if ...  Maybe it would have been better. Maybe it would have been the same. Maybe it would have been worse. There's no way to know.

     From the big picture - you are right that the endgame 10+ years later could not be
     predicted.  However, in the short term (next sevearl years)  I believe that I would have
     continued to direct her life in the direction that I had been - and that she would have
     avoided some major negaiver things that she got into in the next several years. 
     That is what I believe her mother saw comming; and why she pleaded with me to get back
     involved with her daughter - accepting that it would become sexual.
     Knowing most of what did happen to that young lady over the next sevearl years - I doubt
     that it would have been possible for it to turn out any worse.


Yes, I want laws to protect my innocent kid from being used by an adult.
 
    Agreed


On the other hand, if my daughter (God forbid) ever lied about her age... she could fool a man into thinking she was not the jail bait that she really is!

    And there is the rub.  While I don't believe I have been subject to that situation....  I
    know one guy who spent a weekend in jail - even after questioning the young lady to
    the point of looking at her ID card.  It turned out to be a fake ID card.  It also turned
    out that the police knew that she was out there with a fake ID card and seducing older
    men.  He was still going to be charged with statutory rape.   How many underaged
    gals out there get fake ID cards.  It is not, I believe, really that uncommon.


So I agree with you and Perry that the circumstances really have to be examined. Not every case of contact between an adult and a minor should be viewed as criminal. On the other hand, keep predators away from my kid!!!


     Thanks for the agreement:  So how do we do that? 

     I have no problem in nailing predators - and even think that in certain cases that castration
     would be appropriate ( I hope I don't offend you on that one Deb either).

The real problem with this discussion is that there are a lot of people who do know and understand at least portions of the issues involved - but will never speak up on them because they or their lover could be prosecuted to this day on what happened (perhaps long long ago):  - or the social stigma would be unacceptable as well.  By some degree of luck I avoided the situations that would currently be subject to charges (dispite how long ago these incidents occured).  Thus I can talk about them without worry of that.

Perry

So lets focus a bit on what this case is:

It occured in Nebraska.  The age of consent in Nebraska is 17.

Note that worldwide the age of consent ranges from 12 - 20; with 14-16 being the most common range (although a series of countries do have 13, and some countries have different ages with the gals always having the lower age of consent).  A few countries have adopted 18 as the age of consent.  Within the US:  The average age of consent is 16 with the range being 14-18 depending on the state.  Here is the link:

www.avert.org/aofconsent.htm


Here's a great definintion I have found on another site: 

What counts as 'sex'?

This, too, is different, depending on the laws in the place where you live. Some places count things like kissing as sexual contact, and other places only count sexual intercourse. Check out the laws in your state or country.


So in the wrong place just kissing is counted as sex.... and statutory rape (that seems close to the statutes that Wisconsin has adopted; while I think they exclude a simple kiss... certainly anything beyond that - like a hug would count).



Later I will try to find out some specifics on Nebraska Law and this case.  For now It's off to work I go (I'm on call today and have already been called in once; now I get to go back again).

Perry

Here is some more on the legal status - and some more on details:

The girl involved was the 12 year old daughter of his fiance.

Mr. Thompson was charged with 2 counts of "Sexual Contact"  That occured over a couple of months last year.

In Nebraska; you can be charged with two forms of Sexual Assult:  Sexual Contact, and/or Sexual Penitration.  The definintion of sexual penitration is pretty standard and includes oral sex (The Nebraska definintions and distinctions make a lot more sense than what exist currently in Wisconsin).


Sexual Contact is:  ( From:  www.unicam.state.ne.us/laws/index.htm  )

(5) Sexual contact means the intentional touching of the victim's sexual or intimate parts or the intentional touching of the victim's clothing covering the immediate area of the victim's sexual or intimate parts. Sexual contact shall also mean the touching by the victim of the actor's sexual or intimate parts or the clothing covering the immediate area of the actor's sexual or intimate parts when such touching is intentionally caused by the actor. Sexual contact shall include only such conduct which can be reasonably construed as being for the purpose of sexual arousal or gratification of either party. Sexual contact shall also include the touching of a child with the actor's sexual or intimate parts on any part of the child's body for purposes of sexual assault of a child under section 28-320.01;



There have been three significant court rulings of the following that affects this defiintion (the first two are essentially identicle - and perhaps the second ruling occured after a change in the statute):

1)  In proving "sexual contact," defined in subdivision (5) of this section, the State need not prove sexual arousal or gratification, but only circumstances and conduct which could be construed as being for such a purpose. State v. Berkman, 230 Neb. 163, 430 N.W.2d 310 (1988).3. Sexual penetration

2)  In proving sexual contact, the State need not prove sexual arousal or gratification, but only circumstances and conduct which could be construed as being for such a purpose. State v. Osborn, 241 Neb. 424, 490 N.W.2d 160 (1992).

3)  "Sexual contact," as defined in subsection (5) of this section, is established when the State proves that defendant intentionally touched the victim's underpants in the area between the legs. State v. Andersen, 238 Neb. 32, 468 N.W.2d 617 (1991).

Perry's comments:  I'm bothered by the fact that conduct that could be construed (first 2) but was not for sexual purposes would still get you convicted.  Also, I wonder about the application of the thrid one to emergency medical personel (and some other situations I can think up dealing with care and helping someone who needed it). 


OK: here is what we know - and don't know:

A)  He did not have sex - in the conventional sense or orally - with the girl.   Otherwise he would have been charged with "Sexual Penitration"

B)  It could have been incidental contact without sexual intent on his part through her cloths (perhaps while tickling?).

C)  It could have been significant petting and and full sexual arrousal - and release -  of both him and her.

D) I doubt that it was a steady or routine thing (whatever it was):  2 counts from a couple month period in the previous year.

E) We have no information if she was interested and a freely consenting person to the acts, a total victum, or even potentially initiated sexual contact (it happens).  Given her age - none of that makes any difference.  Only that the "Sexual Contact" occured:  He is guilty even if she unknowing to him (and uninvited) climbed into his bed at night and started things - and then he kicked her out of bed.

Now: depending on what did actually happen - I feel that the guy should either never have been charged (incidental contact - or she initiated it and he backed away) - up to he should indeed be in jail now (if he initiated heavy petting type contact for sexual purposes).   

Unfortunately, we will never know for sure as the details of what did happen are almost certainly sealed because of her age.

The only real clue was the judges comment that "that doesn't make you a hunter.  You do not fit that category." 

This would indicate to me that it was closer to the incidental contact or she initiated it catagory than the he initiated full sexual petting contact for sexual arrousal (i.e. he did not hunt her).


One further item:  The sentancing has been appealed to a higher court by the DA's office.  They want him in jail.

Hope that helps all understand as much as I suspose we can.

Perry

blodthecat Says:

Just a short reply to your original post.  Sorry if this sounds old fashioned and idealistic!

Childhood is so brief these days.  There is nothing clever about sex, infact any idiot can do it.  My concern is that these days young people are not allowed to grow and develop emotionally without thinking that sex is something they have to master too.

Sex is easy....relationships are much harder.  These days all the emphasis is on sex and not relationships.

I think young people should be given the opportunity to develop BOTH physically and emotionally before they start becoming sexually active.  They are then in a better position to make balanced decisions about what is right for them.

Just my 2c


Actually:  I totally agree.  You are so right.  So how do we get back to that - versus the current idea that it is OK to date a different person every week (or more often).  I heard a co-worker recently describe her daughter as practicing serial monagamy (which I think was a great line).  That she was faithfull to her current boyfreind - but changed them frequently. 

In general I think that people should be encouraging that people - of all ages - have a freindship and mutuall relationship first.  That under most situaions that sexuality should be within such a relationship. 

Of course their are exceptions to that, and has anyone else ever sat down and listed all the reasons people have sex?  The pro's and con's of each of those situations (another exercise that may help kids - if the parents can pull it off without becoming upset or being able to fairly discuss the issues and options).


I understand that people may be wondering about me and some of my points.  I'm just not a person who sees everything in black and white.  I am always thinking of the exceptions to all the rules - and understand that there are cases where those exceptions apply.

I feel that justice - real justice occurs when people understand what happened and the motivation for what happened; and the knowlede that people had along with the risk that people took in the situation.   Then apply the appropriate penalty for punishment for the unique case situation.   The goal - if possible - of the punisment phase is to change something about the person so that what happened does not happen again.  Only in the most agreegious situations should punishment be just for punishment sake.  Only in the most extreem cases should people be locked up for life or put to death.

It bothers me when people just see some headline or news-story and jump to conclusions on what happened and what the punishment should be.  The news- orgainzations are more about creating contriversial headlines and stories instead of deep investigation and reporting that there is a mess that needs to be understood before any judgement can be made.  The reason is people seem to want that instant headline or short story that they can then react to and feel good about their reaction. 

In extreem cases the press can destroy (or attempt to destroy) an individuals position in scociety (and I was once the featured guy for a 3 part - 3 consecutive days - top half of the front page - picture in the upper right - expose' of mismanagment of the power plant; where a series of charges by emplyees against me on a variety of issues were detailed out in full paragraphs as complete waste of time and money - and all of my answers were cut to "Mr.  _______ says he had to do that."  What I had to do in most cases was to comply with current state and federal laws - but the paper did not take the time to explain that to its readers even after I cited chapter and verse on most of the issues; afterall one of the reporters told me - that would imply that the previous managment hadn't done their job - and they were well known and respected in the community.  Oh, the fact that I took a plant that was broke down about 6 months a year and returned it to utility grade reliable service (6 month run times with spring and fall outages) somehow did not make the story as well - even though the reporters were given the information).

Thus, I tend to take press reports with a grain of salt and a questioning attitude.

Few people tend to take the effort to learn more and question (who else went out and looked up more information on this case).

Concerning the main issue in this thread:  Sexual Misconduct by an "adult" with a "child."  What a real mess of possibilities.  

In general  - the concept of the "age of consent" is to prevent an older person from exercising  an undue "Balance of power" over a younger person such that the younger person essentially does not have a a free choice in the matter.  "age of consent" was not set to adress the issues of force or intimidation.  Ordinary sexual assult laws always cover that independent of age.

I agree with the concern:  An older person can totally overwhelm a younger person - and the younger person can agree to things just to please the older person.  That is wrong - and taking advantage of the younger person.

The problem is how do you implement it; how do you sort it out:  The younger a person is the more likely the chance of this type of influence; and the older they are the less chance of that.  A significant problem is also that different kids mature at different rates.  As stated above:  I have seen 12 year olds that were more mature than some 18 year olds (and I would trust that the 12 year old was mature enough to decide to have sex and the 18 year old was not) - and I think that most of you know what I mean. Some people feel that gals often mentally mature faster then guys - thus there can be an argument the there should be an age difference for gals and guys.  The fact that the age of consent arround the world ranges from 12 to 20, with some states and countries having different ages for gals and guys indictes the range of possible approached on the subject - and the disagreement on the approaches.

Are the laws just in allowing for the range of possibilites?  I believe no:  Under the current situation in the US I believe that the pendulum has swung too far (anything to protect the children - is inappropriate when it applies unfair punishment to others:  The key is ballance).  This issue has some of the best examples of the worst laws:  I believe a classic example of a bad law is one that if actually applied against every member of the population the law targets - would declare that most of them are in fact a criminal.  I can't speak to most states:  but the "statuatory rape" laws in Wisconsin would lable most of the teenagers as sexual predators for life if actaully applied to all teenagers.


Does the fact that someone does something make them a "criminal"  (if so we are all criminals) - or does the situation and the response of the person have a meaning.  Or did we just make a mistake:  as discussed above:  I once had "sexual contact" with a younger person (touched a breast):  it was unintentional, unexpected, I reacted to quickly end it, I appologized becasue I felt that I had done something wrong and that I needed to appologize for it - then I withdrew from her life to end the temptation when she wanted to continue (and an important part of that temptation was that she was a freind - I liked her).  Does that make me a sexual predator - yet that is how the current laws would brand me if this were to happen now (and I'd be branded for life).  

Here again is another disconnect with fairness (and this has largly been adopted across the country):  Someone who has some form of sexual contact (any form - no matter how minor, regardless of who intitiated it and the situation; and regardless of the response of the other person - even if to reject) with a person under the age of conset in the state would be labled a sexual predator for life.

Another thing that has often puzzled me:  How come someone could date someone in one area and engage in sexual activity - perfectly legally - but then worry about being arrested and prosecuted if they take a trip with the same person to another state (I could potentially legally date and have sex with a young lady of 14 - who lived just across the border: but in my home state she would have to be 18).  There are other cases where people can get legally married in one state - but if they move to another state the marriage would not be recognized and the people charged (this issue deals with how close of relative is someone).  

I think that there should be a recognition that people who travel should not be considered criminals - or have their marrage broken up - just because they are visiting another state (as long as you are legal in your state of residence - no charges here while you are visiting): and that marriages should be recongized as legal if they were legal in the state where the people are from (previous residency in those other states required: not the cases where people eloped to get married in another state and then returned home).
 

In the end my thoughts are (consensual activities):

Do guys and gals want sex with each other - sometimes with significant age differences:  Yes.

Is it wrong:   I see that as case dependent: depends on the sitution and the intent of both parties (and I'd instantly toss out any charges against an older person where a youner person lied about their age).

Is the older person always the initiator:  No

Why do people have sexual desires and why can they be suduced:  Great question - and I don't have an answer.  And some people really know how to press our individual sexual buttons.

Are there sexual predators out there - who target younger children just for sex:  Yes.

Would I convict them and subject them to a range of rehabilitation and punishments:  Yes - in fact, I'd go so far as to literally castrate some of them (and perhaps many of them) - and would consider the death penalty for the worst cases.  Some people are too dangerous to society to be allowed in it.

Should sexual predators be labled as such for people in the community to know about:  Yes; but I also think that there should be some form of scale that indicates the level of risk the person is (ranging from "sexaul predator - most likely effectively treated"; Sexual predator - for the following type of situation";  Sexual predator:  general high risk).

Does isolated cases of sexual contact - up to full sexual engagemnt and a potentially long term relationship with a person make one of them a sexual predator:   No.  Even if there was inappropriate or wrong behaviour A person can recognize that they made a mistake and work to avoid it the rest of their life.  In fact; my opinion is that is what you would want people to do.  Those are the examples that people need to see. 

As far as this case:  Nebraska & Mr Thompson:  I will defer to the judge - recognizing that she is the one with all the details on what did and did not happen; who inititiated it under what circumstances; what Mr Thompsons reactions were to the situation; what the young ladies reactions were; and the fact that she feels that the potential harm to Mr Thompson in prison is inappropriate for the situation.  I don't know many (if any) judges who are leanient on real sexual predators.  Much less a female judge.

I am also very concerned with how our prisons system seems to turn out people a lot worse than when they went in; and how the US prision population keeps growing - in the face of a lot of evidence that the worst violent crimes are decreasing.  Just tossing people into jail is not always the answer.  But it seems that a lot of people feel that way.

Have a great day folks - and I hope I have helped people think about the situation - and what justice really means. 

Here is something else to think upon:  If any of you are ever charged with a crime - and there is a lot of circumstancial evidence against you (regardless of the facts).  Do you want someone like me sitting on the jury - or do you want somene who is outraged at the crime, or aspects of the crime, and believe that anyone involved in any way needs to pay - big time.

Perry